At its San Francisco convention this month, the ABA adopted a rule regulating things from lawyers’ speech to the access to their office restrooms. ...

Known as 8.4(g), the rule provides that it is “professional misconduct” to engage in discrimination based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The rule specifies that discrimination includes “verbal” conduct that “manifests bias.”

If lawyers do not follow this rule, they risk discipline (e.g., disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law). ...

In case of rule 8.4(g), the standard, for lawyers at least, apparently does not include the First Amendment right to free speech. Consider the following form of “verbal” conduct when one lawyer tells another, in connection with a case, “I abhor the idle rich. We should raise capital gains taxes.” The lawyer has just violated the ABA rule by manifesting bias based on socioeconomic status.

More likely consequences include a scenario where, e.g., a law firm does not hire a job applicant who seeks a position as a messenger. If this firm designates restrooms by sex, the applicant can always argue that the firm engaged in “gender identity” discrimination. If the disappointed job seeker identifies with the opposite sex (or claims to), he creates leverage by claiming that he was not hired because the firm’s restrooms demonstrated gender-identity bias. ...

It's another example of how the Left is using anti-discrimination laws to silence their opponents and conservative lawyers (and right-thinking--as in correct--liberals) need to fight back.

At its San Francisco convention this month, the ABA adopted a rule regulating things from lawyers’ speech to the access to their office restrooms. ...

Known as 8.4(g), the rule provides that it is “professional misconduct” to engage in discrimination based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The rule specifies that discrimination includes “verbal” conduct that “manifests bias.”

If lawyers do not follow this rule, they risk discipline (e.g., disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law). ...

In case of rule 8.4(g), the standard, for lawyers at least, apparently does not include the First Amendment right to free speech. Consider the following form of “verbal” conduct when one lawyer tells another, in connection with a case, “I abhor the idle rich. We should raise capital gains taxes.” The lawyer has just violated the ABA rule by manifesting bias based on socioeconomic status.

More likely consequences include a scenario where, e.g., a law firm does not hire a job applicant who seeks a position as a messenger. If this firm designates restrooms by sex, the applicant can always argue that the firm engaged in “gender identity” discrimination. If the disappointed job seeker identifies with the opposite sex (or claims to), he creates leverage by claiming that he was not hired because the firm’s restrooms demonstrated gender-identity bias. ...

It's another example of how the Left is using anti-discrimination laws to silence their opponents and conservative lawyers (and right-thinking--as in correct--liberals) need to fight back.